Monthly Archives: June 2011

Deemed Director – When a Resignation is Not Enough

By Eric Koh of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

Introduction

A director of a corporation is personally liable under subsection 323(1) of the Excise Tax Act1 (“ETA”) for the failure of the corporation to remit goods and services tax (“GST”).    However, subsection 323(5) imposes a time limit on this liability whereby a director will not be held liable for unremitted GST two or more years after ceasing to be a director.  Unfortunately, the Tax Court of Canada’s (“TCC”) decision in Snively v. The Queen 2 (“Snively”) makes it more difficult for an individual to rely on subsection 323(5).  Indeed, this decision may have broader ramifications on directors’ liability in general, and beyond the ETA.   According to the TCC, an individual may still be a deemed director of a corporation even after formally resigning from that position.

Amendments To The Ontario “Construction Lien Act”

by Matthew Alter of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Ontario’s Open for Business Act, 2010 (OFBA) amended numerous statutes, including the Construction Lien Act (CLA).

The OFBA amendments are probably the most significant changes to the Province’s construction lien legislation in 20 years. These amendments have come into force in stages, with the balance becoming effective on July 1, 2011. Coming-into-force dates for the various provisions are noted below.

The principal amendments consist of:

Deloitte Partners on Livent File Lose in Ontario Court of Appeal

Three of the four Deloitte audit partners on the Livent Inc. file have lost in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Livent Inc. was a public company that promoted live musical entertainment and musical theatre in Canada and the United States. It was also involved in the construction and management of theatres. At the relevant time, Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb were Livent’s largest shareholders and its two most senior officers. Deloitte & Touche LLP was Livent’s auditor for the fiscal years 1989 to 1997. The three partners were senior members of the Deloitte audit team responsible for the 1997 Livent audit. In April 1998, Deloitte released an unqualified audit opinion approving the 1997 financial statements of Livent. Later in 1998, under new management, serious financial irregularities were discovered in Livent’s books. An internal investigation resulted in the re-statement of Livent’s 1996 and 1997 financial statements, and criminal fraud charges were brought against Drabinsky and Gottlieb.

The ICAO, the licensing and governing body of chartered accountants in Ontario, subsequently brought charges of professional misconduct against four senior Deloitte accountants involved in the 1997 audit. They were charged with professional misconduct for allegedly having failed to adhere to accounting and auditing standards.

For further details of the subsequent events, please see the cogent decision here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca409/2011onca409.html

If you want to receive further updates like this, please join the Canadian Accountants group on LinkedIn.com and sign up for our e-newsletters here:

Understanding Holding Companies

by June Rudderham of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP

A holding company is a company that owns shares in another company.  If the holding company owns the majority of shares of another company, it is also referred to as a parent company.  It generally does not produce goods or services itself.  The sole purpose of a holding company is usually to own shares in another company.

The reasons for establishing holding companies are diverse.  They may be created to operate for a short period of time or as part of a long-term plan.  Whether it is better to form a holding company to hold your shares rather than you holding them personally requires significant consideration of your individual circumstances and proper advice from qualified professionals.  Factors to consider include the nature and revenue of the business, the jurisdiction in which the business owner resides, and the business owner’s long term goals.  In this article I have outlined some of the benefits and drawbacks associated with creating holding companies.

Sales Thought – Stir ‘Em Up

by Nick Miller of Clarity Advantage

From the “Unreferred Approaches to Prospects” Department: We are reminded that we can’t pitch our benefits to prospects unless we first get their attention.

Pitching benefits to prospects is a complete waste of time

I was at the office pretty late Friday night. Tooled into the house around midnight. Why? Email. LOTS of email…combined with “Nick’s Rule of Roughly 20” which goes something like, “You can’t leave the office Friday night until there are roughly 20 or fewer emails in your email box.”) Needless to say, Friday night is NOT a big date night for me.

However, on many Friday nights, I am delighted because my email box has filled with cold-approach prospecting emails. And I read all of them.

And, do you know what I’ve learned? Pitching benefits in those cold approach emails is a complete waste of time… IF… the email senders want me to pay attention to their messages. Their benefits and whoop-dee-doo roll into an indistinguishable drone:

  • Decreased X  by over 10% in the first 3 months of engagement
  • Increased Y  by 23% in 5 months
  • 30% – 40% decrease in Z  year over year

True, but completely predictable and, therefor, booooooooooring. Will not get prospects’ attention.

What to do differently?

Sales Thought – No Bonehead Mistakes

by Nick Miller of Clarity Advantage

In which we are reminded that even small mistakes can fatally undermine our credibility and effectiveness with prospects.  

So… I bought a new pair of shoes from an on-line provider.  Not your basic New England conservative black or ox blood penny loafer, mind you. No! Shoes with MUCH more style and swing to them – enough that my very socially-aware son commented, “Nice shoes.” Life doesn’t get much better than that. Really stepping out.

And, being the care-taker that I am, I wanted to know how to maintain and care for the shoes, The leather is a little different from what I’m used to. So, I went to the manufacturer’s web site, found the “contact us” page, wrote my questions, and sent the message to the company.  A big company, I might add, a very well known, been-around-a-long-time shoe company.

About 5 minutes after I sent the email, I received an email from the company, in return. “Ah,” I guessed, delighted, “a confirmation email” which read, when I opened it…

Thank you for your inquiry.

Canada: Reverberations For Real Estate Agents

by John O’Sullivan of WeirFoulds LLP

What is the duty of a real estate agent to verify the information provided by the vendor of the property to prospective purchasers?

In this space I frequently moan about the danger of mediation stemming the flow of judicial precedent, but here is a nice legal question answered by the Court of Appeal for Ontario this month.

The property was a residential home with significant structural and plumbing problems.

The agent, who acted for both the purchaser and the vendor, became the meat in the sandwich.